Even if HillaryCare II is overturned that will not be the end of it. Overturning the individual mandate while leaving the rest of the bill intact will breathe more than enough life into incrementalism&#8217;s forces to give them the edge in the years ahead.

Not even repeal will drive a stake in the heart of socialized medicine. The vampire is protected by two well-armed guards; 1) Wall Street; 2) rank and file parasites. Strange bedfellows indeed; nevertheless, both have an overwhelming vested interest in seeing the vampire suck the blood out of the American people.

NOTE: Repealing the XVI Amendment would pull the vampire&#8217;s fangs. That&#8217;s not going to happen. Why have you never heard anybody with a public voice even mention it? Answer: The federal government worships two sacred cows above all others; membership in the United Nations is one; the Income Tax Amendment is the other.

Assuming the Affordable Care Act is upheld it will still trigger incrementalism. You have to be out of your mind if you think Socialists/Communists will ever be satisfied. Remember when HillaryCare II was still in the hopper? The American people were told that everybody would be covered. After the bill was signed into law it turned out that millions were without coverage. That was deliberate. It gave the parasites reason to come back for more. Bet on this &#8212;&#8212; there will always be people who are not covered for that very reason.

Also, the poorest cannot afford to buy the insurance dictated by the bill. The government cannot punish them with fines if they can&#8217;t afford the insurance in the first place. Use your imagination as to what happens next.

Let&#8217;s look at one scenario if the bill is overturned:

Even should the court overturn the entire law, the Obama administration already has had two years of work &#8211; and money &#8211; to install the various restrictions, limits and oversight. Would it be possible for those simply to become null and void?

And further, if the individual mandate, or the entire law, is banished, the organization &#8220;expects an immediate push in states like California to enact their own universal health care.&#8221;

&#8220;California lawmakers have come close to taking such a step within the last few years but have so far deferred to President Obama&#8217;s plan. A state-based approach would present new legal challenges since key limitations like the Commerce Clause do not apply to them,&#8221; the report said.

Click to expand...

Obamacare fight 'soon to be over'? LOL!
'We are already &#8230; preparing for years of new court battles'
by Bob Unruh
Published 12 hours ago

There is nothing wrong with a state instituting socialized medicine so long as the people in that state pay for it themselves. The problem is that federal taxpayers do not know how many federal tax dollars subsidize RomneyCare? Then-Governor Romney was in Ted Kennedy&#8217;s back pocket; so it&#8217;s a lead pipe cinch that taxpayers in the other 49 states pay some part of RomneyCare. It&#8217;s no wonder Romney gets away with playing to conservatives when he says he wants to repeal HillaryCare II. He is less committed to repealing RomneyCare. I know he is not the governor of Massachusetts, but as a resident of the state he could demonstrate sincerity by suggesting repeal.

More to the point, does anyone believe that California lawmakers will ask Californians to pick up the entire tab for CalCare? Not likely.

Finally, it won&#8217;t take long before every state legislature realizes their constituents are funding states like Massachusetts and California. It might take a decade or two, but every state will have no choice but to institute a version of socialized medicine. Any state failing to do so will make them the biggest suckers in the world.

Also, the poorest cannot afford to buy the insurance dictated by the bill. The government cannot punish them with fines if they cant afford the insurance in the first place. Use your imagination as to what happens next.

Click to expand...

The poorest are 1) not subject to mandate penalties, and 2) eligible for Medicaid.

And yes, presumably California would be joining Vermont in implementing single-payer within a few years if the ACA vanished; single-payer has already made its way to the governor's desk twice in that state, it simply met a Republican governor's veto.

It&#8217;s no wonder Mitt romney gets away with enjoying to conservatives when he says he wants to repeal HillaryCare II. He is less dedicated to repealing RomneyCare. I know he is not the governor of Boston, but as a homeowner of the condition he could illustrate truthfulness by indicating repeal.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!